You are on page 1of 23

Taken from Chapter 2 of M.

Phil dissertation titled “Khandagiri
Udayagiri: The Many Histories of a site” (Carried o t ndr the g idan!e of Prof. Tapati " ha Thak rta#.

Chapter 2: Inhabitations, Contestations and Touristic Performance
In this chapter, the main concern is with the production of space at the site by the discursive practices of administration, archaeology and tourism. The first section focuses on archaeology and on a series of contestations over rights of inhabitation of the site between archaeological authorities and different religious sects who staked their parallel, competing claims over spaces and structures within and outside the boundaries of archaeological jurisdiction at the site. The second section looks at the evolving practices of tourism, on its construction of spaces and on the kinds of performances of sightseeing, touring, pilgrimage or worship that are enacted at Khandagiri-Udayagiri.

$rri%al of $r!haeology
rchaeology and archaeologists arrive in !rissa, following a period of political instability" which lasted from from the #$th century to the beginning of the #%th century during which the of !rissa passed from the &anga dynasty to the fghans, ne't to the (ughals and then to the (arathas who were ousted from power finally with the rise to power of the )ritish within the region in #*+,. &iven its geographical location and dense forests, !rissa had till this time, for the most part remained wild and scarcely e'plored. Khandagiri and Udayagiri were first brought to notice in the writings of . -terling in #*./, which constitute the first non-

missionary colonial writing on !rissa1. 0e mentions that )agh &umpha was occupied by a 1aishnava ascetic and the 2ain temple was consecrated to 3arsavanath. (ention is also of several small, finely carved 2aina sculptures scattered in the 4eva -abha on Khandagiri. fter -terling5s e'ploration, it was 2ames 6ergusson who visited the site in #*,$ and, writing about it, he mentions that several 7fakirs5 were living in the caves and would not let him e'amine the caves they had occupied, and that they were ruining the caves by living and cooking inside them2. The rchaeological -urvey of India reached the site only during around #*89-8$ : following which the site is briefly described by 2.4. )eglar in the #,th volume of the .-.I5s reports3. ;ong before that the site had assumed its importance on the grounds of its ancient inscription in the 0athi &umpha, which had been first copied by the e'plorer, ;t. (arkham Kittoe in #*,8-,* and translated by 2ames 3rincep : and it is this inscription, its sheer anti<uity and volume, which more than anything else ensured that the site, in times to come, would never be devoid of attention from archaeologists, historians or epigraphists. 3rincep was followed by )abu =ajendralala (itra, who along with 0.0. ;ocke, 3rincipal, &overnment -chool of rt, >alcutta and a team of art school students, conducted a thorough scholarly survey and painstaking visual documentation ?though drawings, plaster casts and photographs@ of the twin mountain site, alongside the temples of )hubaneshwar, in an encyclopaedic two-volume work, titled The Antiquities of Orissa, that was produced for a government commission. Ariting in about the 8th decade of the #%th century (itra says that the 2ain temple at Khandagitri was a recent construction, made about *+ years prior to his 1
Andrew Sterling, Orissa: It’s Geography, Statistics, History, Religion and Antiquities ( John Snow, London, 1846)

James Fergusson, Cave temples o India, (Allen, London, 1880)

J ! "eglar, Archaeological Survey o India Reports, !olume "III #$%&'(&), $%&)( &*+, (Ar#haeologi#al Sur$e% o& 'ndia, (al#utta, 18)6)

18)*) 6 '2id . -dayagiri and . 6rom a letter from &.handagiri Caves. which according to )loch had Esuffered badly from the effects of sun and rainF. 0e mentions the e'istence of a small thatched government bungalow at the base of Khandagiri and a )airagi (ath as well.6 >ockburn to &overnment of )engal. they were evacuated and dispatched to 3uri6. =eceiving instructions from -I chief -amuells.t. the site had come to the attention of government and was being brought within the custodial authority and possession of the newly establishes rchaeological -urvey of India ? .. prepared by Theodor )loch. s is obvious. and had to perform only minimal priestly functions4. he says. who5s main task was to keep the temple clean. !elhi 1381) +a.%man and (o . )engal >ircle. dated *th march #*%/. re<uesting him to take steps to protect the caves in the Udayagiri hill*.. ( . -ignificantly. shade was installed over the 0athi &umpha inscription in a bid to protect it. by this period. B'ecutive Bngineer . 0e also claims that the caves were often visited by bears and tigers. &anesh.I@ s early as in (arch #*/$. we see that the mendicants were prohibited by the (agistrate of 3uri from sleeping and cooking at the place. and that.-. for the year #%+#-#%+. at the (agistrate5s order. the -urveyor for the )engal circle. Antiquities o Orissa. showing that the caves were in the jungle away from human habitation. we find that in that particular year the carvings in the =ani. and that the elephants outside &anesh &umpha were put upright. was in the charge of a )rahman from )hubaneshwar. !ol(. 6rom the annual report of the rchaeological -urvey of India.endralala -itra. during the same phases of archaeological activities 4 * + / -aha0atra. This temple. (! 1 /u2li#ations. 4i'on cleared up the sculptured frieCes and statues of Udayagiri 0ill and repaired as far as possible the steps and paths of communication between the caves. the -ecretary to &overment of )engal wrote in a letter to >ommissioner of ! of writing. nant and Dava(uni &umphas were cleaned.

1useums and History 2riting in the 1a3ing o Ancient 4astern India. and specifically the de) 4 "lo#h. &or the %ear 130151302 8 Sraman -u6her. in his 3h. Museums and History Writing in the Making of Ancient astern !ndia. "engal #ir#le. entitled.EThe de-peopling.( $56*. talks about how both the emerging disciplines of Indian rchitecture and Indian rchaeology used !rissa as a launching pad.ingaraj could not be entered. the obstacles that the Aestern scholar had to face in studying the practising shrines from close <uarters and the 7repulsion5 of the erotic sculptures : defined the very ways in which the !rissan temples would be representedF8. )loch remarks that E the building was of no interest. . >alcutta the site.++%@ . "#$%&"'($ ?4epartment of 0istory. ( 7n0u2lished /h! thesis. in the sense of their being in regular use and worship. Annual +e0ort Ar#haeologi#al Sur$e% o& 'ndia. a modern temple close to Dava (uni &umpha was pulled down as it had become unsafe. relatively uncontaminated by Islamic influence. -raman (ukherjee. and its destruction is absolutely no lossF).ee. hence access to them was denied to the )ritish scholar. the Buropean had to resort to abandoned temples such as the sun temple at Konarak" where the profuse erotic sculpture would assail the scholar5s delicate >hristian sensibilities and 1ictorian moralities. s almost all of the temples in !rissa that were of any historical value were 7living5 monuments . leading them to either abhor their presence on a religious structure or to study and depict them from a safe distance. because the sculpture and architecture there were considered purely 0indu. Unearthing the Pasts of Bengal Bihar and Orissa: Archaeology. -nearthing the /asts o 0engal 0ihar and Orissa: Archaeology. The three factors enlisted by -raman (ukherjee determined accessibility and distance of what would and could be studied. 7ni$ersit% o& (al#utta 2010) /g 12) . =egarding the emergence of these disciplines he says G EThe three points of tension : the uneasy lingering of the 7pictures<ue5 lineage. Ahile temples such as 2agannath and . $%*. The thesis also argues .4 thesis.

it did not pose much of a obstacle to archaeological authorities. Ahile it was populated by 7fakirs5 and 7bairagis5 the site was devoid of any 0indu worshipped image. of the )engal &overnment in #*%$. became important for colonial archaeology not merely because of its historical value or because of the presence of the 0athi &umpha inscription. . Ahile there was one temple on the site : the 2ain temple . 3 '2id /g 121 . (ost importantly. but also because of the absence of any erotic imagery and the absence of popular devotion at the site. Khandagiri : Udayagiri. published by the 3. It may be argued. 4.ritualisation of ancient temples were seen as desirable preconditions for the Aestern scholars to subject them to their modern regimes of knowledge productionsF 3. The 0indu )airagis had a temple on Khandagiri to stake a claim on . and the 2ain temple was not one that was very active. : Those monuments which.inga of .that was a site of continuing. and more importantly no 2ains who were living on site in the caves. ought to be maintained in permanent good repair. T. )loch in #%+. the monuments of the )engal 3residency were classified under three main headsG EI. from their present condition and historical or archaeological value.a temple that was there was declared decrepit and demolished by the -urveyor. and the holy men clearly. as they did not have any organiCation or trust board representing them nor did they. A. They could be evicted with ease. presumably.ingaraja. e'cept of course at the time of the annual festival. did not have as much of a following as the wooden idol of 2agannatha or the stone . have any documents of ownership of the site. there was not any significant number of 2ains there. This state of affairs on site is corroborated by -raman (ukherjee5s observation that in the E)ist of Ancient Monuments in Bengal. Khandagiri was itself away from the main city located in the jungle. It is in this light that I will look at the eviction from the site of the ascetics in #*%/. active worship.

fencing. : (onuments in possession or charge of private bodies or individuals.ord >urCon that the ncient (onument 3reservation ct was passed in #%+9 allowing the government to appropriate the site and as much adjoining land as was re<uired for access. preservation and inspection of EH any building or structure of a permanent nature which the .e classified under sections /! 0a12 or /!! 0a12 F10 ?emphasis added@. : Those monuments which. I ?b@ and II ?b@. It was during the 1iceroyalty of . B'empted from this were any buildings that were still in religious use and worship and any building under private 10 '2id /g 30*5306 11 '2id /g 303 .le to . III. : (onuments in possession or charge of &overnment or in respect of which &overnment must undertake the cost of all measures of conservation.and c<uisition ct of #*%9. the &overnment was to be entitled to take up the land for Epublic purposeF under the .e for historical or artistic reasons2114 6or the purpose of protection of ay archaeological monument and site. the e'clusion of water from the walls. and the like.II. it was of no archaeological or historical interest. from their advanced stage of decay or comparative unimportance. which were only deemed worthy of preservation were further subdivided into two classesG EI ?a@ and II ?a@. : Those monuments which it is now only possible or desirable to save from further decay by such minor measures as eradication of vegetation. -ignificantly the 2ain temple at the top of Khandagiri was e'empted because it was under private ownership and under worship" also because. being a very recent of -handagiri and Udayagiri & stood eligi.ocal &overnment thinks it is desirable to 3reser. covering. it is impossible to preserveHF The monuments falling in the first two categories.” Among the ma*or monuments of costal British Orissa only a fe+& the ca.

Thus.I. predictably the judgement was appealed in a higher injunction that later go a long way in deciding the nature of occupation and contestations over inhabitation at Khandagiri Udayagiri. The .ownership which could be protected by means of a joint agreement between the owners and government. and it is not until 4ebala (itra5s e'cavation in #%$+ that there appeared to have been any major new archaeological activity at the site. the )arabhuji &umpha has relief images of the Tirthankaras as well as the -asana 4evis. The controversy had to do mainly with the rights of occupation and worship regarding two caves on Khandagiri hill. t present these two caves are under 0indu occupation and the twelve armed goddesses are being worshipped as 4urga and Kali. )y that time.-. including two large reliefs of twelve armed goddesses on either side of the entrance. considering its low historic value and its ownership by a private body. the archives are silent for some time. the landscape of the site in particular and the city of )hubaneshwar in general had begun to change at an increasing pace. the )arabhuji and (ahavir &umphas. Aith the shift of the capital from >uttack to )hubaneshver in #%9*.. Ahile the (ahavir &umpha has relief images of 2ain Tirthankaras and two small chlorite images. the 2ain temple was left alone. 0owever this is also a period of a controversy which is particularly interesting for in it resurfaces the long and unresolved tension in the relationship of archaeology as a disciplinary and a governmental practice with the historic-monumental site that was steeped in multiple religious and sectarian affiliations.. chose to throw in its . The matter was taken to court where some years ago judgement was passed in favour of the 2ain community. at Khandagiri. following which. instead of pursuing the matter on secular grounds of preservation and custody over these caves. &e!ent history and !ontro%ersy fter #%+. there begins a newer period of archaeological activities in the sate of !rissa. This was also determined by the injunction to leave alone structures that were under worship .

$r!haeologial ' r%ey of (ndia I begin with the .I. saying that both these terms had currency and operation within )uddhism as well12. however it is only with 4ebala (itra5s e'cavation ?#%/*-$#@ that . as is evinced by the last line of the Damokar which is E5amo )oe 6a.I. Damo -iddhanamF .%man and (o . declared Khandagiri-Udayagiri to be under it5s control from #%#/ onwards. Ahile the .-. Thus.a 6ah7nam2 ? translatable as E I pay my respect to all the -adhus. the archaeological identification of Khandagiri : Udayagiri as a 2ain site depended solely on epigraphic evidence obtained by translating Kharavela5s inscription. ( . !ol(. in this tale there are three main playersG the rchaeological -urvey of India. s mentioned in the previous presentation. I attempt in this section to reproduce here a conflict which has been /+ odd years or so in the making.I begins its full-fledged 12 +a. I shall one by one put forward the narratives of each group. this translation of the salutation shows that the term had a freer circulation sometime in the past. which is the opening line of the 2ain Damokar-mantra.. 18)*) . 2agmara and 4umduma to name two. Antiquities o Orissa. It must also be noted that the Damokar is more of a general salutation to spiritual masters and contains no sectarian reference whatsoever. =ajendralal (irta had <uestioned this identification.-.endralala -itra.5s version of the site5s history. Ahile currently the term Damokar has a definite sectarian association. 0owever.. Bach group has a different version of the ancient history of the site.-. which serve as legitimising narratives on which their claims over the site are based.F emphasis added@ . )ased on ethnographic interviews and pamphlets and tourist booklets.-#/ committees of neighbouring villages. where it begins with the salutation EDamo rihantanam. the 2ain community ? Khandagiri and Udaygiri 4igambar 2ain committee@ and the 0indus in the form of a collective of #.lot with the 2ain claimants.

from a lack of iconic imagery belonging to the early period. 4ebala (itra5s . 4hird :dition 1332) 14 '2id 1* '2id . who earns glory by waging wars all over India. 13 !e2ala -itra. history of the site can be briefly summarised thus. Kharavela is seen as the third and most famous king of the (ahameghvahana dynasty. It is in this e'cavation that a ramp leading to 0athi &umpha and the remains of an apsidal structure made from blocks of laterite stone on top of Udayagiri were uncovered. -he however does acknowledge that. unproblematically dated the ramp and the apsidal structure of Udayagiri to the ancient period. Ewas undoubtedly a 2ain and espoused with great Ceal the cause of his faith. while saying that the medieval period was the time when structural temples were made on Khandagiri. which appeared to have been the state religion of KalingaF14. going by remains and rubble found and attested by inscriptions.I. E KharavelaF. The standard official. In it. making the identification of the so called Kalinga 2ina with a Tirthankara unlikely1*.activities on the site that have resulted in its current state. 4ebala (itra. -dayagiri and . 9ew !elhi.guidebook has come to serve ever since as the official version of the site5s ancient and medieval history13. and who despite being an eclectic who honoured all sects and repaired the temples of all gods. earns the respect of his people by constructing civil amenities. Kharavela5s major contributions are said to be the retrieval of Kalinga 2ina. it seems likely that image worship was not prevalent in the early period. The psidal shrine was linked to the 7many pillared hall5 that is mentioned in Kharavela5s inscription. archaeologically authorised. the bringing of the Kalpa-taru sapling and the patronising of 2ain ascetics by making caves for their use and inhabitation at Khandagiri.handagiri (/u2lished 2% the !ire#tor 8eneral Ar#haeologi#al Sur$e% o& 'ndia.-. 4ebala (itra5s guide book underlines.

to -terling5s mention of the 2ain temple.3ashupatas were displacing )uddhism from the region. 6rom here. the second phase of activity was carried out which can be seen today in the form of the iconic relief imagery on the Khandagiri caves. this site was Ehardly affectedF. The 2aina occupation continued here with occasional breaks down to the present day. is deeply invested in maintaining the fiction ? a word that must be used as long as sufficient evidence to the contrary remains unavailable@ that the site is an 16 '2id 1) -dayagiri and . here there is no inscription. an ./. the images in cave % or the (ahavir &umpha were carved16. on the grounds of the crude style and e'ecution of the reliefs.@ by king Kharavela of the >hedi dynasty and his successors who were also devout 2ains.>.fter the decline of the (ahameghvahana dynasty.akulisha. preserving the continuity and tradition of the glorious past of the hillF1). student or spiritual master" hence no proof that ascetics were living here in the #/th century. (Ar#haeologi#al Sur$e% o& 'ndia. -imilarly.I. This shows that the .I. "hu2aneshwar (ir#le) . This continues till the time of the &ajapati rulers in the #/th century when. 4uring the period when . no mention of donor. 4ebala (itra jumps directly to #*.!n the basis of inscriptional evidences. constructed in the late #%th century is under worship even at present. 4ebala (itra claims.-. Unlike other medieval inscriptions found in renovated caves on Khandagiri. The 2aina temple on top of the Khandagiri hill. Under the -omavansi kings. The date is assigned on stylistic and not epigraphic basis. according to 4ebala (itra.handagiri caves 0hu7anesh8ar.. leaflet meant to provide general information about the site to tourists saysG EThese hills are honeycombed with e'cavated rock-cut caves.-. the religion continued to be strong in the region despite not enjoying royal patronage. these caves were first e'cavated ?during the first century ). essentially meant for the dwelling retreats of 2ain recluses..

-ince . at the site and the changes it made were fairly minimal. and water tightening of caves to arrest seepage of rain water. The pathways were made and broadened to facilitate the smooth movement of the traffic of tourists. =egarding the management of the site and the occupation of caves.I. and its main entry gate was left unlocked at all times because. that is. did not ticket entry. it was not within their power to evict the 0indu encroachers as the . Daik. The horticulture department took care of landscaping and making the site more visually appealing. They said that the job of the .++. the . In #%%$ the . was not a ticketed site.-. could only serve notices which had to be implemented by the district authorities.-. -ushant Kumarkar.I. The Khandagiri hill. as it is practised on the site now.altendukesari shram were recent developments. 0. on a Eliving monumentF. and 4r.I officials said that while both the )arabhuji 4evi temple and the . as the two archaeologists e'plained. It had to look after concerns of preservation and undertake activities like re-making broken or collapsed pillars in places where the structural integrity of the cave was threatened.I. It suggests that the 2ainism. is the same as it was when Uddyokta Kesari installed those images or when Kharavela first made the caves. . and informative signs and a translation of the all-important 0athi &umpha inscription were installed. it was a matter of national policy that on any monument where religious activity was going on. There were also activities resultant of opening up the site to tourists such as regular cleaning and maintenance. coming around or after #%$+. introduced tickets for Udayagiri hill and by . fences were installed around both the hills.-.e'clusively 2ain site and that the 2ain tradition here has been continuous and unbroken.I. I had the opportunity to interview 4r. Thereby it de-historicises 2ainism.-. the ssistant rchaeologist of the )hubaneshvar circle. the 4eputy -uperintendent rchaeologist.-. in striking contrast. The .

++8. and that they did not belong to the actual history of the site. In front of the 0athi &umpha. it backed the 2ain claim to the cave and appeared in court supporting the 2ains. 2ayaswal5s translation ?published in 3igra3hica !ndica@ which is.indus &rom the #a$e 4he lo#al 0oli#emen too. the . s the matter was sub-judicial. )ehind the installed translation is a large 18 As 2oth the Jain and . strongly influenced by 2ain mythology and ethical values.I. the . in this particular visit in .3. 2eing mostl% . did not independently attempt to legally reclaim the cave. 4espite several attempts on the part of the . and at both these times he was living in the shram at the bottom of Khandagiri ?and not in a cave as the archaeologists claim@.++/.4.i #a$e . as is argued in the previous chapter.I.indu largel% 2a#6ed the . there was no sign of Daga )aba and there seemed to be nobody living in that shram. part from this. to serve notices and to initiate action. the last one being a 0indu ascetic called Daga )aba who was evicted in . on site. in several subtle but straightforward gestures. =ather.-. lo#al 0oliti#ians would 2lo#6 an% attem0t to remo$e the .+##.the 0indu village committees enjoyed considerable political clout locally. 0owever. This last piece of information seemed doubtful to me. only 2ain ascetics and devotees" that anyone else such as rakhita 4asa or 0ari 4asa living in the caves was only accidental. they refused to comment on the matter anymore.-. it presents a translation of Kharavela5s inscription. have re-inscribed the monument as a particularly 2ain site. s for Udayagiri.-. did not have to evict any -adhus in order to take control of the caves and the hill. on a small stone platform. it had proved impossible to evict them. and presents Kharavela as a 2ain monk-king. )anerjee and K.I. 0owever they were very adamant in insisting that the caves were made for. the . and belong to.I officials claimed that the site was always un-inhabited and that the . the local authorities refused to take the re<uired measures18.I.-.-. It is =. They also said that they did occasionally evict -adhus who would occupy the caves.++/ and for the second time in . =egarding the legal battle over )arabhuji &umpha.indu worshi0 at "ara2hu.indu inter$iewees as well as the A S ' o&&i#ial attested. because I had first met Daga )aba on Khandagiri in .

rchaeological remains when preserved and 13 ( -itra. large visible signification such as that clearly stresses the 2ain history of the site. grou3s in the fluid conditions of an emerging nation state.. the . controlled monuments.e.5s stance is a dual positioning.-. it is on the notice-board at the entrance. -wastika and Dandipada symbol in nant &umpha in relief are noteworthy achievement in early Indian artF.-..I. making large reproductions of sectarian symbols using horticultural technology is unprecedented at least within the limits of my personal e'perience of . that the . the battle over archaeological public interpretation must be seen for what it isG a struggle for 3o+er .. Promised )ands and 8hosen Peo3les: the Politics and Poetics of Archaeological 5arrati. 1360) .-. supported by a particularly befuddling claim of a 7continuous tradition with occasional breaks513" the other positioning is against the 2ain claim over the site where it re-locates the anti<uities ?architectural or sculptural@ from a religious to an art historic discourse. The . To summarise.firstly.I most clearly articulates and drives dome its 2ain identification of the site. It reads G EThe twin hills contain e'cavated rock cut caves called lena in the inscription and are essentially dwelling retreats of the 2aina ascetics. it states that the images are 2ain and not 0indu" secondly.-. &ajala'mi.The depiction of the . -urya ?I@. where it claims the site to be e'clusively 2ain. s Deil sher -ilberman says in his book. !ne stance is vis-a-vis the 0indus.swastika. part from the glaring error whereby all medieval images were called achievements of early Indian art. EH in either case. it claims the images not as products of Indian religion but as products of Indian rt" thereby relocating them in a modern secular discursive field.I. what this notice does are two things .9 Thirthankaras and their -asanadevis in the )arabhuji cave.I. the 2ain symbol par-e'cellence made by trimming a hedge ? Image %@.

"a2u (hotelal Jain. crudely derived from the 0athi &umpha inscriptionG (agadha and Kalinga were two opposing powers. . n informative notice painted at the door of the 2ain temple at Khandagiri claims that king Kharavela spread the boundaries of his kingdom to -ri . The starting point is obviously historic whereby the caves are credited to Kharavela and dated to . =oughly translated it says 7Khandagiri and Udayagiri is an ancient and important 4igambar 2ain site. 133*).anka in the south. 8reat "ritain. :ationalism. published by .#++ years ago through epigraphic analysis. the state religion was 2ain. are almost always monuments either to generalised notions of progress or someone9s inalienable historical and political rightsF20.. one of the Danda kings took back the Kalinga 2ina image to 3ataliputra. /olitics and the /ractice o Archaeology . Bven before shoka5s con<uest of Kalinga.adadevi &ranthamala. the Kalinga 2ina on Khandagiri. 2a#6 #o$er . ?emphasis added@ The )ainsG The 2ain narrative of the history of the site performs several slippages from history into myth and back into history. 2003). /g5 2*8 21 4 9 +ama#handran.++ years ago521. (Ladade$i 8ranthamala. the glorious king Kharavela made these caves for 4igambar 2ain ascetics about . -lowly Kalinga became so rich and glorious that shoka was forced to con<uer it even at e'cessive costs. Kolkata" made available at the 2ain dharmashala. The patron of 4igambar 2ain 4harma. 0e re-established the image of =ishabha 4eva. Kharavela in turn 20 9eil Asher Sil2erman. booklet titled -handagiri&Udayagiri 9he politics and poetics o Archaeological narrative.handagiri(-dayagiri Caves. The booklet presents a brief narrative of the ancient history of !rissa. presents a 4igambar 2ain history of Khandagiri and Udayagiri. (am2ridge. 1ohl and Faw#ett ((am2ridge 7ni$ersit% /ress. &ujrat in the west and Takshashila ? fganistan@ in the Dorth-Bast.presented to the public. Kalinga opposed (agadha5s increasing e'pansionist policies as a result the Danda kings con<uered Kalinga. 1ol6ata.

the di&&eren#es were too star6 &or it to 2e the same narrati$e .-. the site5s upkeep is being ignored whereas the 2ain institution is powerless to take steps for its preservation. projects him as an avenging hero who rights historic wrongs. Ahile the site has all re<uirements for being an International 0eritage site. The preface of the booklet. it is because of the . this marks a new dawn in the golden chapter of the history of 2ain 22 '2id 23 + / -aha0atra in 1384 #are&ull% anal%<es the imager%. geographical. is currently in such a bad shape. It laments that under the care of the . particular relief in (anchpuri where worshipping is depicted is interpreted as the re-installation of the Kalinga 2ina after it was retrieved by Kharavela. It also stresses that the inscription should be translated into various languages and the epigraphic and the stylistic aspects of the site should be looked at from the perspective of various disciplinesG linguistic. stresses the historic and academic importance of the site and how the inscriptions reveal much historically useful information about unknown aspects of India5s history. while speaking the scientific language of stylistic analysis. cultural. The te't talks about it5s immediate conte't and this is particularly revealing. philosophical and historical22. e$en though his narrati$e was 0ro5Jain he admitted that though the stor% had some resem2lan#es with the 2iogra0h% o& +isha2hanatha. Interestingly this narrative locates a certain moral necessity in Kharavela5s actions.-. the Kalinga 2ina image mentioned in king Kharavela5s inscription was with due pomp and ritual installed on a new seat on Khandagiri hill.I. in its opinion. sociological.5s inaction that the site.successfully waged war against (agadha as a result of which the Kalinga 2ina and 2ain religion was re-established in Kalinga. This writing also claims that the reliefs on the larger caves depict incidents from 2ain mythology. Ironically. EIn recent development. without specifying the e'act stories which are represented23. it cannot help but constantly refer back to )uddhist sites such as -anchi and )harhut to talk about Khandagiri5s sculptural reliefs.I.

-hweatambar split in the 2ain religion does not happen till after Kharavela2*. The identification of the Kalinga 2ina as =ishabha 4eva is something that cannot be arrived at by scientific historic methods. Thus these te'ts. -uch an e'ample of near perfect appeal to.sculpture and also now proves that king Kharavela installed the image of the Kalinga 2ina on Khandagiri by constructing a magnificent temple. The other grossly incorrect fact was that of Kharavela being a patron of 4igambar 2ainsim. take ade<uate liberties with it. who stayed at the site ? in e'press disobedience of (ahavira5s injunction to constantly travelJJJ@ and when (ahavira left his body and his soul left for the void these 9%% disciples also from Khandagiri left their bodies and accompanied (ahavira. and the image that has been found still awaits analysis and confirmation by archaeological e'perts@F24.istorians o& Jainism are un#lear as to when e=a#tl% the s0lit ta6es 0la#e. (ahavira passed through Khandagiri and here he made 9%% disciples. /g 3 . ? however that magnificent structure till now hasn5t been found. scientific history in the same breath is rare indeed. 0owever the heaviest argument employed by the 2ains is that the site has been claimed as a -iddha -thana. Ahile the apsidal structure later uncovered by 4ebala (itra was unproblematically proclaimed as Kharavela5s 2inalaya. -ince 9%% 2ain monks achieved Dirvana from this site therefore 24 2* '2id. )annerjee and 2ayaswal also translate him as having donated white cloth to monks. The 2ains claim that during his travels through !rissa. be termed as anything else but (edieval. while claiming affiliation to scientific history. and rejection of. rather the &irst #lue was an 4irthan6ara image wearing #lothes whi#h #ould 2e roughl% dated to the *th #entur% o& the (hristian era . with the e'press aim to impose their own cultic identity over the larger history of the site. by even the most imaginative of archaeologists. there seems to 2e no de#isi$e moment. In fact the 4igambar. the image installed as the Kalinga 2ina in the temple can not.

4uring the (agh -aptami (andir. relief image5s 73rana3rathishtha5 ? its animation or bringing to life@ cannot be performed. there are no other major 2ain pilgrimage spots in !rissa. 0owever. Ahen asked if the 2ains had been worshipping the )arabhuji images before the 0indus had appropriated them. there are no 2ains living in )hubaneshvar. (ahapatra who was sensitive to 2ain te'tual sources does not mention it. the 2ains inaugurate the mela by carrying the so called 7Kalinga 2ina5 image in a 1imana ? cart@ to the 0athi &umpha under Kharavela5s inscription.3. and the smaller temples to its side were built after #%9+. said that because the images are reliefs and not icons. in 2ain te'ts. 4ebala (itra clearly denies any mention of Khandagiri-Udayagiri in 2ain te'tual tradition. Bach of these 9%% monks is symbolically represented as a pair of feet inside a lotus and worshipped in the temple. the manager of >uttack5s >howdhary )aCar 2ain . The main temple was built about . there seems to be no mention of Khandagiri-Udayagiri or KumarK Kumari parvat in particular and definitely no mention of the 9%% monks achieving liberation. !ne can say that in all probability the story is a latter day fabrication made to serve certain instrumental purposes. (ost pilgrims visit from -outhern India or (adhya 3radesh and visit Khandagiri on their return from 3arsavanath. Therefore they were never sacred images to begin with. -imilarly the 4harmashala was built sometime 8+ or *+ years ago. and are not given the status of deity. The charitable homeopathic dispensary was started in #%/*. Bven a writer such as =. with 2ains staying mostly in >houdhary )aCCar and nearby areas in >uttack. There is also a fair number of pilgrims who come from &ujarat or =ajasthan. The Hind s . -amya -ikhar in )ihar. while there is mention of (ahavira visiting Kalinga.the site has special status as a -iddha-sthana or sacred ground for the 2ains.++ years ago. s such. part from this temple on Khandagiri. -hree -antosh Kumar 2ain .

6urther he said that 26 . whereas here )irinchi )aba was identifying him with 1ishnu. . the manager of the 2ain dharamshala when she identified =ishabhnatha with -hiva. 0e started with saying that )hubaneshvar is another name of lord -hiva. he claimed that the dhuni had been burning here since 7ancient times5. The dhuni was attended by an ascetic who introduced himself as )irinchi )aba. kos with the .-ince there was no printed material regarding the 0indu claims to the site. *alatend kesari $ashramG The . The Bkambrakanan is mentioned in the 6kanda Purana and 6i.hi#h the editor o& the Jain 2oo6let > 1handagiri57da%agiri #a$es #alls a sour#e o& 0ollution . This. did not use historic facts as stepping stones. which. )imladevi 2ain. similar opinion had been voiced by -mt. but rather used mythology to refer to or even sometimes e'plain historicity. the city is named after him but in truth the city is actually Demisharanya.ord -hiva5s residence which e'tends to a radius of . also e'plains the medieval name of the site G Kumar 3arvat.alatendukesari &umpha.alatendukesari ashram is a temporary structure built in front of the . Kartikaya was born on the hill. which is why the hill was called -kandhagiri which got collo<uialised into Khandagiri. housing a 7perpetual fire5 : a dhuni26.a Purana. incidentally. 0e narrated a mythic account of Khandagiri5s history.. and the opinions did vary from institution to institution. Kumar and -kanda both being Kartikeya5s names. 0e went on to claim that Kharavela was not a 2ain but a -haivite : also that 2ainism was not a separate religion but was a part of the -anatan 4harma. Ahen asked. Khandagiri at the outer reaches of the Demisharanya is the Bkambrakanan. it was because of the increasing corruption and greed among the )rahmins that lord 1ishnu had to incarnate himself as )uddha and 2ain. he said that the famous bhakti poet 2agannatha 4asa had written that =ishabhnatha was an avatar of 1ishnu. I had to gather information through interviews.ingaraja temple as the centre point. the 7meditation retreat5 of lord -hiva. unlike the 2ain narrative. ccording to him.

housing a 1ishnu image called nanta Kesari. a priest. +ara. Ahen asked if a 3rana3rathistha was performed for the images before they were worshipped by the 0indus. possibly around the time of the 2ain temple5s construction. the 2ains. believe that if an image has not been worshipped for a considerable period of time then it should be re-consecrated before is it stay order from court now prevents further . armed goddess protects all. he said to the best of his knowledge it had always been empty and no one knew about it. In the name of the temple several structural changes had been made to the cave.+ -. making a large courtyard is an older construction.alatendukesari himself did penance here for #.9 and prior to that it was a 0indu temple. The images of the -asanadevis and Tirthankaras in the )arabhuji &umpha had been painted black.the . the priest said that since the images were very old they probably had been consecrated sometime in the past. 0e claimed that 0indus had been worshipping the devi at )arabhuji since ancient times. years and that he would hold conferences with various other saints. obviously to reduce their visibility. which still visits the site every year during the mela from a temple in 2agmara where it stays as a guest. whereas the terrace in front of the temple. he said. but no such ritual had been done within recent memory ?the 2ains at least. defacement of the images. gain.h -i " mphaG In the )arabhuji &umphaKtemple.+ years ago. The floor had been opened up and re-laid with marble about . 6inally he claimed that . 0is claim was that the 2ain temple was consecrated in #%. I spoke to )aamdeb 4as. walls had been collapsed and pillar re-constructed. =egarding the small empty temple above (ahavir &umpha. called the devis >hakreshwari and -hankheshwari which was proof enough of them being 0indu goddesses since the chakra and shankha were associated with 1ishnu ?Image $@. he also claimed that 0induism and 2ainism were not different religions.alatendukesari shram was mentioned by chyutananda 4asa as being a nodal place where the #. since the 2ains consider that relief images cannot be consecrated. if not the 0indus.

to the west was &opal 2ew in -yanpur village. one of the #/ surrounding villages that consider )arabhuji to be their Ishta-devi. The 0indu priest5s account was more or less reproduced by -ri 4ebendra -ubudhi the secretary of the village committee of 4umduma village. 6urther. The shram itself was built sometime in the #%8+s during the stewardship of the previous (ahant. late -adhu Uddhav 4as. it was their nakedness which signified their holiness?Image 8@. including a piece 2) A##ording to the editor o& the Jain 2oo6let. the o##u0ation o& the #a$es o##urred 40 %ears ago . in case of the Tirthankars. 1handagiri57da%agiri (a$es. the vadhoot sadhus are <uite aware of their own historicity and acknowledge that their sect came into being only after rakhita 4asa.+ or 9+ years old2). whereby nanta Kesari had to stay in =aghunath5s temple in 2agmara as a 7guest5. The 0indu claimed it was improper to worship a naked image while the 2ain claimed that.+++ years ago. but the controversy over the cave was . to the north Darsinghnath in Tapovan shram and in the east was =aghunath in 2agmara village" in the centre of all of this was nanta Kesari who was established at Khandagiri. the 2ains took over the 1ishnu temple and dedicated it to =ishabhnatha. 4uring my documentation of the site. ccording to -ri -ubudhi. who was a fairly recent figure. to the south he said was 4adhibawan 4eb in yaginiya village. Unlike the others who always seem to start with . it was in this period that members of the trust board betrayed the trust and fraudently sold much of the land for personal benefit. I witnessed a 2ain householderpriest offering rice grains and obeisance to all relief images. 0e too said that 0indus had been worshipping )arabhuji since ancient time.worshipped again@. I also witnessed an argument between the 2ain and the 0indu priest regarding the covering of the images. Ahile the shram had a fair amount of land holdings scattered across )hubaneshvar. Pad ka $ashramG The 3aduka shram belongs to followers of the sage rakhit 4as and are <uite unconnected to the )arabhuji controversy.

s of now.+-. when the . 6or the first. -adhu 4ambru 4as who has been associated with the site for over 9+ years says. the samadhis have been demolished and structures have come up on them. and it is appro'imately at the same time the ashram was remade with brick and cement. began to evict the sadhus from the caves. The current (ahant. a numerically significant amount of them. conserve and recover its ancient glory. waiting for the archaeologist and art-historian to e'cavate. nanta Kesari is again probably the same image that 3halahari &osain worshipped and carried out in cart festivals . that there was a 1ishnu temple on Khandagiri but it was not the 2ain temple" and second. however the 4haramshala is not able to raise its boundary wall because of the court case. !nly one shrine is credited to a (ahant previous to Uddhav 4as. )y the *+5s urbanisation had come to )hubaneshvar and by the mid-%+5s the city had spread as far as upto Khandagiri.of land right ne't to the current shram which was sold to the 2ain 4haramshala.9 was probably the installation of the so.This structure is . we know from -terling. the Kali shrine is credited to -adhu )halu 4as but it is unclear if he built the cement shrine or if he just installed the image there. 6ergusson and =ajendralal (itra5s accounts that even in the #%th century the temple on top of Khandagiri was a 2ain temple.I. which would go some way to e'plain the stone terrace in front of (ahavir and )arabhuji gumphas. that earlier the ashram was a mud structure that functioned like a base camp where -adhus would report and where rakhit 4as5s wooden slippers and manuscripts would lie on a wooden charpoy. The (ahant promptly filed a case against the 2ain committee as the land contained funerary memorials of previous (ahants. 6rom all of this we can gather two thingsG first. that too.-./ years ago. that Udayagiri was not a secular site devoid of religious activity. nanta Kesari then was probably housed in the smaller structure above (ahavir &umpha. fter which slowly one by one various idols and shrines were added to it. the consecration that the 0indus refer to as having happened in #%. whereas most of the sadhus would live in the Udayagiri caves.called 7Kalinga 2ina5. )ut that began to change .

idol ne'us.. inclusions and e'clusions. Udayagiri was thus. from institutions backed by the rchaeological -urvey. =eligion in Khandagiri-Udayagiri was pushed back and by definition forced to reside between the priest. asI have shown. however. with some clearly more permissible than others. Then. )loch. there are more liminal of occupations. -econdly. and a stone bench was installed inside in the shape of a .again. it only appeared as EtrespassingF.-. . It was.5s parameters for 7religious activity5 were configured only to )rahmanical idol worship. -adhus living inside caves never appeared in the . the rchaeological -urvey officials5 claim that Udayagiri did not have a living religious tradition. the politics of inclusion and e'clusion and the performance of tourism are discussed in the last section of the chapter.I. their e'istence made possible only because of the rifts created by the conflicts between the larger religious and administrative institutions controlling the site.5s registers as religious activity. concerning buildings and habitations on the site. there are a whole range of touristic performance and appropriation that goes on at the site. -ometime later the temple was renovated but its garbagriha was plastered over. whereas the 0indu worship of an unsanctified wall relief in Khandagiri was recognised as religious activity which could not be disturbed. Ahat becomes evident is the -urvey is not neutral with regards to various sectarian occupations on the site.I. very much a living site. This narrative also raises many <uestions as to the role of rchaeological -urvey with regard to permissions and restrictions.-. then cleansed and secularised. is largely false. possibly the same structure which was demolished by T. such as the 2ain (andir and 4haramshala. it can be conjectured that it was not actually demolished but rather de-sanctified and the image sent to 2agmara. e'cept that the . to those backed by local power interests such as the )arabhuji (andir and to some e'tent the 3aduka ashram. 0owever we can also see a wide spectrum of inhabitation at Khandagiri and Udayagiri. The construction of space. mostly at an individual level. part from this.